remanded H-1B Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20793865 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (H-lB) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 2, 2022 
The Petitioner seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as a "math teacher" under the H-lB 
nonimmigrant classification for specialty occupations. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b). The H-lB program allows a U.S. 
employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the 
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment 
of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty ( or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite 
for entry into the position. 
The California Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish 
that the Beneficiary is qualified to perform services in the proffered position. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and additional evidence, and asserts that the Director erred in denying the petition. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. See Matter of Christa's Inc., 26 l&N 
Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
Upon review, we will remand the matter to the Director because the record does not establish that the 
proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation. We follow long-standing legal standards and 
determine first, whether the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation, and second, whether 
the beneficiary was qualified for the position at the time the nonimmigrant visa petition was 
filed. Cf. Matter of Michael Hertz Assocs., 19 I&N Dec. 558, 560 (Comm'r 1988) ("The facts of a 
beneficiary's background only come at issue after it is found that the position in which the petitioner 
intends to employ him falls within [a specialty occupation]."). In this case, the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary will be providing services in a specialty occupation. 
For example, on the labor condition application (LCA)1 submitted in support of the H-lB petition, the 
Petitioner designated the proffered position under the occupational category "Self-Enrichment 
1 The Petitioner is required to submit a certified LCA to demonstrate that it will pay an H-1B worker the higher of either 
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the "area of employment " or the actual wage paid by the employer 
Education Teachers" corresponding to the standard occupational classification code 25-30212 from 
the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) at a Level 11 wage. The O*NET identifies this 
occupational category as a Job Zone Three occupation, indicating that most occupations in the zone 
require training in vocational schools, related on-the-job experience, or an associate's degree. Thus, 
designation of this occupation on the LCA, without more, does not establish that the proffered position 
requires at least a bachelor's degree in a specific specialty. Additionally, while the Petitioner described 
the duties of the proffered position, the description is not sufficiently detailed to ascertain the nature 
and level of responsibility of the proposed position. The record, as currently constituted, does not 
establish the substantive nature of the proffered position or demonstrate that performing the duties 
described would require the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized 
knowledge and the attainment of a baccalaureate or higher degree in a specific specialty, or its 
equivalent, as the minimum for entry into the occupation.3 
As the Petitioner was not previously accorded the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the record 
discussed above, we will remand the record for further review of these issues. The Director may 
request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new determination. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
to other employees with similar experience and qualifications who are performing the same services. Section 212(n)(1) 
of the Act; 20 C.F.R. § 655.731(a). 
2 See O*NET Summary Report for "Self-Enrichment Teachers," SOC code 25-3021 at https://www.onetonline.org/ 
link/summary/25-3021.00 (last visited Mar. 2, 2022). 
3 See section 214(i)(l) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(4)(ii) (defining the term "specialty occupation). 
2